In Simple Terms
The U.S. government wants to define ultra-processed foods, but experts and officials have not agreed on exactly which foods belong in that group. Some products seem obvious, while others fall into a gray area. These foods may be linked to health problems, but what matters most is a person’s overall eating pattern—not one snack or meal.
Why Does the Government Want an Official Definition?
In August, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services, announced that the government planned to create an official definition of ultra-processed foods. It would be the first federal effort of its kind. Kennedy said the goal was to help people make better food choices, but he did not explain what standards would determine which products counted. More than two months later, news reports said the effort had stalled amid opposition from food companies and concerns at the White House about possible legal consequences.
A dispute over terminology might sound academic, but it can shape how food policies are put into practice. Without agreement on what “ultra-processed” means, government agencies may struggle to set consistent rules for monitoring products or decide which foods should be covered by measures such as improving school meals or giving shoppers clearer information about what they buy.
Lindsey Smith Taillie, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says the absence of a shared standard can leave regulators, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers unsure where the boundaries lie. A company might say a product does not belong in the category, while another organization might treat it as a clear example. Without a published rule, decisions are harder to understand and apply consistently.
Scientific and health organizations, including the American Heart Association, support adopting a federal definition. Agreeing on one term would not resolve every debate about food, but it could give policymakers a starting point and make discussions of products and potential risks less vague. A clear standard could also help the government assess whether particular measures make sense, such as restricting certain ingredients in school meals or improving the information available to consumers.
A Common Category, Filled with Familiar Foods
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that these products account for about 55 percent of the calories Americans consume each day, on average. The share is even higher among people ages 1 to 18, although the source does not give a specific figure for the increase. That makes ultra-processed food part of a broader discussion about the everyday food environment—not just a question of whether someone eats a particular snack.
Foods that might fall into this category include potato chips, candy, and some frozen meals. Many are made using industrial processes and may contain large amounts of sugar, salt, or saturated fat, along with ingredients added for color, flavor, or texture. But being packaged or processed does not automatically settle how a food should be classified. Processing varies, and some foods that have undergone processing can still be part of a healthy diet.
Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and professor emerita at New York University, describes these products as often being industrially designed to be highly appealing, with combinations of flavors, textures, and additives. She offers a practical way to think about the category: Could you make the product in an ordinary home kitchen? It is a rough guide, though, not an official rule that can settle every case.
Matthew Landry, an assistant professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine, notes that many of these products are designed to be easy to eat and convenient to consume often. Their flavor, texture, and packaging may make them suited to eating on the go—or to having another serving. Many are portable and convenient, and some are heavily marketed to children. These features help explain why the products appeal to people, but they do not, by themselves, establish a particular health effect.
Four Levels of Processing—and Boundaries Still in Dispute
Researchers use a system known as NOVA to group foods according to how much processing they have undergone. It divides foods into four groups. The first includes unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts, legumes, and meat. The second covers ingredients commonly used in cooking, including salt, sugar, and fats.
The third group includes foods processed through methods such as canning or fermentation, including some kinds of cheese. The fourth contains products that have undergone extensive industrial or physical processing. These may contain high levels of added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, as well as ingredients such as flavorings, colors, and emulsifiers. Potato chips, candy, and some frozen meals are possible examples—not a definitive list that automatically applies to every product of the same name.
The difficulty is that NOVA focuses on how a food is processed, not its overall nutritional value. As a result, a product with little nutritional value and another containing beneficial nutrients can end up in the same group if both meet the processing criteria. Other systems, such as IF-PRO, try to factor nutritional information into the classification. But researchers have not settled on a single approach that brings these considerations together.
The gray areas become obvious when people consider foods that do not have an easy answer. Where should flavored yogurt go? What about granola bars or tofu? The answer may depend on the ingredients, the manufacturing process, and the classification system being used. Whatever cutoff is chosen, some products will sit close to the line. Some may be included even though consumers or experts do not think they belong, while others may be left out despite reasons to classify them as ultra-processed.
What Do We Know About the Health Effects?
Available evidence links consumption of ultra-processed foods to a higher likelihood of chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Some studies also point to worse outcomes on certain measures of mental health. But an association alone does not explain why an effect occurs, or prove that industrial processing itself is responsible in every case.
Some products may be high in sugar, salt, or saturated fat—nutritional characteristics that can affect health. At the same time, other factors related to how a food is made, its composition, or people’s eating habits may also matter. Researchers have not yet determined which of these factors explains the observed links, or how much each contributes. It would therefore be misleading to assume that every industrially processed food causes the same harm, or that all products in one category are alike.
Some researchers also suggest that certain products may be so appealing that they encourage people to eat them repeatedly. Easy access, a long shelf life for some products, and targeted marketing can all help make these foods a constant presence in daily life. But understanding the effects of these features means separating what seems plausible from what has been shown to cause an outcome. A food classification alone cannot answer every question about health.
Why Has Agreement Stalled?
One practical challenge is that companies are not required to list every detail of how a product was manufactured on its package. The ingredients list can offer clues, such as added colors or sweeteners, thickening agents, or chemical names that may be unfamiliar to consumers. But it is not a complete record of every industrial step the food underwent, so it cannot serve as a precise substitute for manufacturing information.
Another challenge is that there may be no single, scientifically clear point separating processed from unprocessed food. Anyone setting a standard has to choose a practical cutoff. But that line may include products some people believe do not belong, or exclude products others think should be covered. The more a definition is used in laws and on labels, the more important it becomes to explain and justify how the boundary was drawn.
Some plant-based alternatives show how complicated the question can be. In an article published in July, Landry and a co-author discussed the possibility that processed plant-based meat alternatives, such as soy patties, could help some people move toward whole plant foods such as beans and lentils. That does not mean every processed alternative is beneficial. Rather, it illustrates how a classification based only on processing may miss a product’s possible role in a broader eating pattern or its nutritional value in a particular context.
Access to fresh food also varies from household to household. Families experiencing food insecurity may rely on shelf-stable products or frozen meals because they are available or easier to store. Landry says federal policy should take these families into account and avoid turning the classification into a stigma that blames people who have few choices. A policy intended to improve diets is unlikely to succeed if it ignores cost, availability, and the circumstances of everyday life.
The food industry is another influential participant in the debate. Nestle says companies have mounted strong resistance, while Taillie says efforts to prevent agreement on a shared definition have been organized and have included lobbying at different levels of government. The stakes are also tied to the products’ commercial importance and profitability: an official definition could affect how they are regulated, marketed, or described to consumers. According to news reports, Kennedy’s plan faced opposition from the industry and concerns within the White House about potential legal consequences, contributing to the effort’s delay.
What Can Consumers Do Now?
Without an agreed federal standard, consumers can treat the idea of ultra-processed food as a way to think about their overall eating habits—not as a test that labels every bite good or bad. It may be more useful to notice how often foods high in sugar, salt, or saturated fat appear in the diet and whether meals include a variety of foods than to judge one meal or ingredient in isolation.
Taillie suggests that looking at what someone eats over the course of a day may be more useful than worrying about whether one slice of bread or one cup of instant noodles fits a particular category. The broader questions are how often foods with these characteristics show up in meals and whether there is room to add vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. This approach is not a health diagnosis and does not replace appropriate dietary guidance, but it can help people avoid dividing every food into “allowed” and “forbidden.”
Experts see no need to panic over having a piece of candy or an instant meal now and then. What matters more is what regularly makes up someone’s diet, not whether a particular product appears on a single occasion. Nor should a classification lead people to overlook the fact that shelf-stable and convenient foods can be a practical choice for some households, especially when fresh alternatives are expensive or unavailable.
The Bottom Line
The United States is trying to define ultra-processed foods because they make up a substantial part of what people eat, and a clear definition could help guide policies on school meals, food labels, and product oversight. But drawing the line is not straightforward. Classification systems differ, package labels provide limited information about manufacturing, and some products combine industrial processing with potentially useful nutritional qualities. Meanwhile, some people depend on long-lasting foods for practical or economic reasons.
Links between these foods and certain chronic diseases and measures of mental health make the subject important to study, but they do not establish whether processing, ingredients, or other factors are responsible. Scientific disagreement, commercial pressure, and potential legal consequences have all complicated the federal effort announced in August. Until a clear standard emerges, a more balanced approach is to pay attention to overall eating habits without treating one food as cause for alarm.